Hi Christian,
Thanks for the update which addressed most of the comments.
This mail consists of two parts:
PART A: Replies tagged as [Yao] to your response/discussion around the
comments for v-05, including comment34 and comment42 as you mentioned.
PART B: Comments tagged as <comment 6-1> <comment 6-2> ... mainly on
the updated texts in v-06. And the line number in this part could be found in
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-06.txt.
Regards,
Yao
================================PART A==============================
<comment 13><technical> I didn't quite understand what is the "dynamic
unprotected adjancency-SIDs" here. If TI-LFA is used, it is a protected adj-sid.
[cs] agree on TI-LFA being applied to a protected adj-SID, but this sentence
meant to explain that TI-LFA and uLoop avoidance should use the auto-generated
non-persistent SIDs to define the repair or loop-free path. Reworded to make
this more clear
[Yao] Is it necessary to mention TI-LFA and uloop avoidance using
auto-generated non-persistent SIDs here? Since TI-LFA should not be used for
CS-SR Policy as described in this document.
466 When using SR-MPLS this constraint is called "Base MPLS Imposition
467 MSD" and is advertised via IS-IS [RFC8491], OSPF [RFC8476], BGP-LS
468 [RFC8814] and PCEP [RFC8664].
470 When using SRv6 this constraint is called "SRH Max H.encaps" and is
471 advertised via IS-IS [RFC9352], OSPF [RFC9513], BGP-LS [RFC9514] and
472 PCEP [RFC9603]
<comment 26><technical> Suggest to use "SRH Max H.encaps MSD" to be aligned
with "Base MPLS Imposition MSD" in MPLS.
[cs] agree. I took the text from IANA. Should we tell IANA to make the names in
the MSD registry to be consistent? i.e. add MSD to where it is missing or
remove MSD for all of them because its somewhat redundant as the registry is
all about MSD
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types
[Yao] Yes, there're inconsistencies among the names of different types of MSD.
I took the term "SRH Max H.encaps MSD" from RFC9352 section 4.3. I like the
idea to remove all the redundant the MSD term in IANA :)
654 7.3.1. 1+R Restoration
<comment 33><technical> Why it is called 1+R restoration since only one
candidate path is used for protection in this section
[cs] the “…+R” nomenclature is coming from what is being described in RFC8131
[Yao] Got it. If I understand it right, the "1:1+R Restoration" in section
7.3.2 is the same as the "1+1+R Restoration" in RFC8131 section 3.1.2. If it is
the case, the title of section 7.3.2 is suggested to changed to "1+1+R
Restoration", and RFC8131 is suggested added as a reference in section 7.3.
<comment 34><technical><discussion>The whole section using STAMP for OAM
purpose, can other mechanism be used, e.g, BFD for connectivity validation?
[cs] in theory yes, but I don’t think there is any RFC or active WG draft
documenting the use of BFD for SR Policy candidate path connectivity
verification.
[Yao] For SR-MPLS, there's draft-ietf-spring-bfd, although it has just expired
on March, the authors are working on it to address comments as I'm searching it
in the list. For BFD for SRv6, it's true that there's not a WG document, but my
personal understanding is that it's mainly about encapsulating BFD in SRv6 and
many vendors have implemented it, and I suppose this is one of the reasons why
there's not a RFC/WG document for it yet.
Any way, my point is, when it comes to connectivity verification, BFD comes to
many people's mind first, is there any reason why in this document STAMP is
recommended instead of BFD, simply because there's no standard document for
SRv6 policy BFD? I think this question may also be asked after submitted to
IESG.
886 The headend may measure the actual bandwidth utilization of a CS-SR
887 Policy to take local action and/or report it as requested bandwidth
888 via PCEP or BGP-LS to the stateful PCE/controller. Typical actions
889 are raising alarms or adjusting the reserved bandwidth.
<comment 42><technical> The measured bandwidth utilization(e.g,10GB/s) can be
reported to the controller to influence the bandwidth adjustment, but I don't
quite understand why the measured bandwidth can be used as the requested
bandwidth.(Its bandwidth measured is already 10GB/s, why requesting a 10GB/s
bandwidth to the controller ).
[cs] The intent of this paragraph was to explain how a situation may be dealt
with where the request bandwidth during path establishment is lower than the
actual measured bandwidth.
Based on a recent comment we now have added text to section 4.1 outlining the
need for an ingress policers/shaper to limit that actual traffic being sent
into the SR Policy can never exceed the requested bandwidth. So we could
consider removing this paragraph, or we could adjust this paragraph to explain
that measurement of actual traffic can be used for automatic bandwidth
adjustments (aka auto-bandwidth) as long as they don’t lead changes in the
path routing which we before explicitly ruled out
[Yao] If the latter option is chosed, there should be some corresponding
descriptions in section 4.1 since it is related to bandwidth management. Is
"automatic bandwidth adjustment" corresponding to "to request the reserved
bandwidth to be adjusted" in the last sentence of section 4.1 ? And since this
section is called "Candidate Path Validity Verification", just describing the
auto-bandwidth mechanism seems not completely related with the topic, in the
auto-bandwidth case, when would be a candidate path considered invalid, is
there any difference compared with the non-auto-bandwidth case?
==========================PART B============================================
16 Abstract
18 This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
19 to satisfy the requirements for bandwidth, end-to-end recovery and
20 persistent paths within a SR network. SR Policies satisfying these
21 requirements are called "circuit-style" SR Policies (CS-SR Policies).
<comment 6-1><technical>Update the concept to "CS-SR Policy" accordingly.
91 1. Introduction
93 Segment Routing (SR) does allow for a single network to carry both
94 typical IP (connection-less) services and connection-oriented
95 transport services. IP services typically leverage ECMP and TI-LFA.
<comment 6-2><technical>I missed it in the review for v-05. TI-LFA is specific
for SR, other IP services could not leverage TI-LFA. Using FRR(Fast Reroute)
may be more appropriate.
198 [RFC8664] will be used. When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754],
199 [RFC8986], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC9603] are used.
<comment 6-3><editorial> comma between [RFC8754] and [RFC8986] seems
unnecessary.
Take section 2 in this document as reference : "OPTIONAL" in this document are
to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] ......
241 When using SR-MPLS [RFC8660] existing IGP extensions defined in
242 [RFC8667] and [RFC8665] and BGP-LS defined in [RFC9085] can be used
243 to distribute the topology information including those persistent and
244 unprotected adjacency-SIDs.
246 When using SRv6 [RFC8754] the IGP extensions defined in [RFC9352],
247 [RFC9513] and BGP-LS extensions in [RFC9514] apply.
<comment 6-3><editorial>suggest to add comma after "When using SR-MPLS
[RFC8660]"/ "When using SRv6 [RFC8754]"
943 External commands are typically issued by an operator to control the
944 candidate path state of a CS-SR Policy using the management interface
945 of the
947 * headends, when the CS-SR Policy was instantiated via configuration
948 or via PCEP PCC-initiated mode
950 * PCE/controller When the CS-SR Policy was instantiated via BGP or
951 via PCEP PCE-initiated mode
<comment 6-4><editorial>
Suggested text
External commands are typically issued by an operator to control the
candidate path state of a CS-SR policy using the management interface of:
* headends: When the CS-SR policy was instantiated via configuration or
PCEP PCC-initiated mode.
* PCE/controller: When the CS-SR policy was instantiated via BGP or
PCEP PCE-initiated mode.
955 It is very common to allow operators to trigger a switch between
956 candidate paths even if no failure is present. E.g. to proactively
957 drain a resource for maintenance purposes.
<comment 6-5><editorial>
Suggested Text:
It is very common to allow operators to trigger a switch between candidate
paths even if no failure is present, e.g., to proactively drain a resource for
maintenance purposes.
970 10. Security Considerations
972 This document does not define any new protocol extensions and
973 therefore, does not introduce any new security considerations.
<comment 6-6><technical> If you look at some existing informational RFCs(e.g.,
RFC8403), no new protocol extensions seems not the reason of no new security
issues, if you use existing protocols differently, there may also be new
security issues. And the considerations of existing documents listed now seems
not complete.
Suggested Text:
(Just an example, please change/add the description if it's not that
accurate/appropriate)
This document provide guidance of how to implement the CS-SR Policy
leveraging existing mechanisms and protocol extensions. As such, it does not
introduce any new security considerations.
Security considerations of SR Policy[RFC9256] apply to this document.
For CS-SR Policy instantiation and states report :
*When using PCEP, security considerations in
[RFC8664],[RFC9603],[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path],
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp],[I-D.ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions]
and [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] apply.
*When using BGP, security considerations in
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]apply.
*When instantiating the Policies via configuration, security
requirements in [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang].
For CS-SR Policy OAM, security considerations in
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] apply when STAMP is used.
Original
From: ChristianSchmutzer(cschmutz) <cschmutz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: 刘尧00165286;
Cc: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz)
<cschm...@cisco.com>;draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy.auth...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy.auth...@ietf.org>;SPRING WG List
<spring@ietf.org>;spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2025年04月16日 01:43
Subject: [spring] Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-05
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
Hi Yao,
Many thanks for your very detailed shepherd review and in particular for
already providing proposals for new text as well !
Sorry that it took quite a while to respond.
I have uploaded version -06 where Andrew Stone and I are trying to address
your comments.
For comments 34 and 42 no text changes are made yet, we likely need some
discussion and agreement on how to address them.
regards
Christian
On 10.03.2025, at 12:12, liu.ya...@zte.com.cn wrote:
Dear authors,
I have reviewed draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-05 and have the following
comments, listed below from <comment 1> to <comment 44>.
These comments mainly include the following:
a) Definition of CS-SR Policy is suggested to be more clear <comment 17>
b) Inconsistent description style used when describing SR-MPLS and SRv6,PCEP
and BGP,PCC-initiated mode and PCE-initiated mode.
c) Some references are lost or not be updated to the latest status
d) Key words("MUST", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED"...) are suggested to be added in
some places
e) Discussion on the terms used for recovery scheme in section 7.
f) Some texts are suggestion to be reconstructed for ease of reading
g) Editorial nits
Line numbers is included from nits
(https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-05.txt)
to help identify where in the document the comment applies.
Regards,
Yao
13 Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies
14 draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-05
<comment 1><technical> "Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies" or ""Circuit
Style Segment Routing Policy" ?
I understand that when we are talking able more than one CS-SR Policy, the term
"CS-SR Policies" should be used. But when refering to the new concept (a new
type of SR policy), using "CS-SR Policy" may be better and the usage should be
consistent throughout the document, taking examples from RFC8402.
[cs] changed to Policy
94 However transport services (commonly referred to as "private lines")
95 are delivered via pseudowires (defined by the PWE3 and PALS
96 workgroups) and require:
<comment 2><technical> Suggest to use RFCs(e.g RFC3985) or documents as
references for pseudowires instead of names of working groups.
[cs] reworded and inserted some explicit references
141 * LSPA : LSP attributes
<comment 3><editorial> "attributes" should be "Attributes"
[cs] good catch, done
195 When using PCEP as the communication protocol on the headend routers,
196 the centralized entity is a stateful PCE defined in [RFC8231]. When
197 using a MPLS data plane [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined in
198 [RFC8664] will be used. When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754],
199 [RFC8986], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC9603] are used.
<comment 4><editorial> Inconsistent description style used when describing
SR-MPLS and SRv6. Use "MPLS"&"IPv6", or "SR-MPLS"&"SRv6". And RFC8986 seems
unnecessary. Similar comments apply for line 230.
Suggested text:
When using the SR-MPLS data plane [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined in
[RFC8664] are used. When using the SRv6 data plane [RFC8754],PCEP extensions
defined in [RFC9603] are used.
[cs] adopted the suggestion plus removed the words “data plane” because SR-MPLS
as an abbreviation is referring to “SR over the MPLS data plane” per RFC8660
<quote>
This document specifies the forwarding behavior to allow instantiating SR over
the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
</quote>
192 CS-SR Policies can be instantiated in the headend routers using
193 configuration, PCEP or BGP.
195 When using PCEP as the communication protocol on the headend routers,
196 the centralized entity is a stateful PCE defined in [RFC8231]. When
197 using a MPLS data plane [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined in
198 [RFC8664] will be used. When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754],
199 [RFC8986], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC9603] are used.
201 When using BGP as the communication protocol on the headend routers,
202 the BGP extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] are used.
204 When using configuration, the YANG model defined in
205 [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] does apply.
<comment 5><editorial> Suggest to adjust the structure of the above text to
combine them as a whole paragraph.
Suggested text:
CS-SR Policies can be instantiated in the headend routers using PCEP,BGP or
configuration.
* When using PCEP as the communication protocol on the headend routers, the
centralized entity is a stateful PCE defined in [RFC8231]. When using the
SR-MPLS data plane [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC8664] are used.
When using the SRv6 data plane [RFC8754], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC9603]
are used.
* When using BGP as the communication protocol on the headend routers, the BGP
extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] are used.
* When using configuration, the YANG model defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] does apply.
[cs] done
210 * An adjacency-SID which is:
212 - Manually allocated or persistent: to ensure that its value does
213 not change after a node reload
<comment 6><technical><discussion> "Manually allocated or persistent" or
"Manually allocated and persistent" ?
[cs] manually configured adj-SIDs are persistent by nature. But you can also
have auto-generated adj-SIDs that never change, i.e. are persistent. reworded
the text to be more explicit
224 In a network with link bundles an adjacency-SID SHOULD be assigned to
225 each member-link ([RFC8668], [RFC9356]) to ensure deterministic
226 traffic placement onto physical links.
<comment 7><technical> Some reference/example may help to understand what link
bundle is.
Suggested Text:
In a network with link bundles(i.e,Link Aggregation Group[IEEE802.1AX]), an
adjacency-SID SHOULD be assigned to each member-link ([RFC8668], [RFC9356]) to
ensure deterministic traffic placement onto physical links.
[cs] added IEEE reference as suggested and reworded to clearly state the
problem to solve in this paragraph
227 adjacency-SIDs representing parallel adjacencies Section 4.3 of
228 [RFC8402] SHOULD also be avoided.
<comment 8><technical> RFC8402 doesn't have section 4.3
[cs] good catch. Should have been 3.4.1
235 When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754], [RFC8986] the IGP extensions
236 defined in [RFC9352], [RFC9513] and BGP-LS extensions in [RFC9514]
237 apply.
<comment 9><editorial> RFC8986 seems unnecessary. A few places in this document
use "a SR...", should be "an SR..."
Suggested Text:
When using an SRv6 data plane [RFC8754], the IGP extensions defined in
[RFC9352], [RFC9513] and BGP-LS extensions in [RFC9514] apply.
[cs] removed reference to RFC8986. Also removed data plane to be consistent
with the change made earlier
242 In a circuit switched network such as SONET/SDH, OTN or
243 DWDM resources (timeslots or a wavelength) are allocated
<comment 10><technical> The terms SONET/SDH, OTN and DWDM are neither listed in
the terminology section nor with explanation attached.
[cs] added
245 In a packet switched network resources are
246 only allocated when communication is present, i.e. packets are to be
247 sent.
<comment 11><editorial> Comma is lost in a few places, such as line 250,line
349,line 406,line 429,line547,605,610
Suggested Text:
In a packet switched network, resources are only allocated when communication
is present, i.e. when packets are to be sent.
[cs] adopted suggestion. I had troubles correlating your line #s. Opening the
.txt file in an editor (VScode in my case) didn’t seem to line up with your
missing command suggestions.
280 * Use of dedicated manual unprotected adjacency-SIDs that are used
281 solely by CS-SR traffic. Features like TI-LFA
282 [I-D.draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] and microloop
283 avoidance [I-D.draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] can use
284 dynamic unprotected adjancency-SIDs.
<comment 12><editorial> Start with an imperative sentence to keep it consistent
with the previous graphes.
Suggested Text: Use dedicated persistent unprotected adjacency-SIDs solely for
CS-SR policies.
[cs] adopted suggestion to point to persistent rater than manual.
<comment 13><technical> I didn't quite understand what is the "dynamic
unprotected adjancency-SIDs" here. If TI-LFA is used, it is a protected adj-sid.
[cs] agree on TI-LFA being applied to a protected adj-SID, but this sentence
meant to explain that TI-LFA and uLoop avoidance should use the auto-generated
non-persistent SIDs to define the repair or loop-free path. Reworded to make
this more clear
286 The approach of allocating a Diffserv codepoint can leverage any of
287 the following Per Hop Behavior (PHB) strategies:
289 * Use a Assured Forwarding (AF) class queue for CS-SR Policies and
290 limit the total utilization across all other queues to bandwidth O
291 by traffic policing or shaping and ensure that P - N - O >= C
293 * Use a Expedited Forwarding (EF) class queue for CS-SR Policies and
294 limit the total utilization across all other EF queues of higher
295 or equal priority to bandwidth O by traffic policing or shaping
296 and ensure that P - N - O >= C
298 * Use a Expedited Forwarding (EF) class queue for CS-SR Policies
299 with a priority higher than all other EF queues and limit the
300 utilization of the CS-SR Policy EF queue by traffic policing to C
301 <= P - N
<comment 14><editorial> Per Hop Behavior--> Per-Hop Behavior as mentioned
in line220 and RFC3246.
[cs] Done
<comment 15><technical> reference should be added for AF(RFC2597) and
EF(RFC3246)
[cs] Done
<comment 16><technical> considering that the whole text is the expansion of the
Diffserv codepoint allocating method, and the meaning P, N and C are not
mentioned in the previous Diffserv codepoint allocating method part. It is
suggestion to add the explanation for them at the beginning of this part for
ease of understanding.
OLD:
The approach of allocating a Diffserv codepoint can leverage any of the
following Per Hop Behavior (PHB) strategies:
Suggested NEW Text:
The approach of allocating a Diffserv codepoint can leverage any of the
following Per Hop Behavior (PHB) strategies below, where P is the the bandwidth
of physical link, N is the bandwidth allocated for network control and C is
the bandwidth reserved for CS-SR policies.
[cs] great point, I added your suggestion
120 SR Policies that satisfy those requirements are called "Circuit-
121 Style" SR Policies (CS-SR Policies).
311 5. CS-SR Policy Characteristics
313 A CS-SR Policy has the following characteristics:
317 * Bidirectional co-routed: a CS-SR Policy between A and Z is an
318 association of an SR Policy from A to Z and an SR Policy from Z to
319 A following the same path(s)
<comment 17><technical><discussion> Just to confirm that a CS-SR Policy is
consist of two unidirection SR policies that are co-routed, right?
If the above understanding is right,let's look back at the definition of CS-SR
Policy in the introduction section(line 120, line 121), the definition is not
that accurate.
A "normal" SR Policy is unidirectioanal, so there wouldn't be an single SR
Policy can satisfy all the requirements listed in the introduction section
along and can be called a CS-SR Policy.
It is suggested to re-consider the definition of the CS-SR Policy in the
introduction section to make it more clear and aligned with the characteristics
in section 5, such as, A "Circuit-Style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy)" is an
association of two co-routed unidirectioanal SR Policies, and it satisfies the
above requirements.
[cs] adopted your suggestion
328 * Multiple candidate paths in case of protection/restoration:
<comment 18><technical> This description may lead to misunderstanding that
there must be multiple candidate paths in a CS-SR Policy.
Suggested NEW Text:
More than one candidate path may appear in case of protection/restoration
[cs] done
342 * Connectivity verification and performance measurement is activated
343 on each candidate path (Section 8)
<comment 19><editorial>
NEW
Connectivity verification and performance measurement are activated on each
candidate path (Section 8)
[cs] done
353 Both nodes A and Z act as PCC and delegate path computation to the
354 PCE using PCEP with the extensions defined in [RFC8664] and the
355 procedure described in Section 5.7.1 of [RFC8231]. SRv6 specific
356 extensions are defined in [RFC9603].
<comment 20><editorial> re-construct the paragraph to make parallel
descriptions for SR-MPLS and SRv6
Suggested new text
Both node A and Z act as PCC and delegate path computation to the
PCE using PCEP with the procedure described in Section 5.7.1 of [RFC8231].
For SR-MPLS, the extensions defined in [RFC8664] are used. And SRv6 specific
extensions are defined in [RFC9603].
[cs] reworded
358 The PCRpt message sent from the headends to the PCE contains the
359 following parameters:
<comment 21><technical> Is a "SHOULD" needed here?
Suggested New Text
The PCRpt message sent from the headends to the PCE SHOULD contain the
following parameters:
[cs] added
347 6.1. Policy Creation when using PCEP
413 In addition to the above described PCC-initiated mode of operation,
414 The SR Policies can be instantiated in the network by a PCE using
415 PCE-initiated procedures.
<comment 22><technical><major> The PCC-initiated procedures are described
detailly and takes up most of section 6.1, while the PCE-initiated procedures
are only mentioned in the above paragraph, which seems not clear enough as a
guidance for implementing PCE-initiated mode. It is suggested to expand the
PCE-initiated procedures, either as paragraphs in section 6.1 or as a
sub-section (e.g section6.1.1 for PCC-initiated mode and section6.1.2 for
PCE-initiated mode). For the description of PCE-initiated mode, if some
procedures are just the same as those for PCC-initiated mode,a concise
description can be used or just refering to the PCC-initiated mode, but it
should not be omitted.
[cs] introduced sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 as suggested
423 The centralized controller is instructed (i.e. by an application via
424 an API call)
<comment 23><technical> By using "i.e", it indicates that the only way to
instruct the controller is by an application via an API call. "e.g" seems
better since there may be other choices such as direct configuration on the
controller.
[cs] changed. my bad, as a non native English speaker I always thought i.e and
e.g. have more or less the same meaning
423 The centralized controller is instructed (i.e. by an application via
424 an API call) to create the CS-SR Policy, for which the controller
425 does perform path computation and is requesting headend A via BGP to
426 instantiate a SR Policy (with Z as endpoint) and requesting headend Z
427 via BGP to instantiate a SR Policy (with Z as endpoint).
<comment 24><editorial> I'm not a native English speaker, but "is requesting"
used here seems a little bit strange, and two "and" are used in one sentence.
Suggested New Text:
for which the controller performs path computation and requests the headends
via BGP to instantiate the corresponding SR Policies on them, e.g, headend A
is requested via BGP to instantiate an SR Policy with Z as the endpoint and
headend Z is requested via BGP to instantiate an SR Policy with A as the
endpoint.
[cs] indeed this sentence is weird and a bit too long. I did reword both this
and the previous paragraph which hopefully makes the start of section 6.2 more
easy to read
460 6.3. Maximum SID Depth
<comment 25><technical> Suggest to use "Maximum SID Depth Constraint " as the
title to make the theme clear at the first glance.
[cs] done
466 When using SR-MPLS this constraint is called "Base MPLS Imposition
467 MSD" and is advertised via IS-IS [RFC8491], OSPF [RFC8476], BGP-LS
468 [RFC8814] and PCEP [RFC8664].
470 When using SRv6 this constraint is called "SRH Max H.encaps" and is
471 advertised via IS-IS [RFC9352], OSPF [RFC9513], BGP-LS [RFC9514] and
472 PCEP [RFC9603]
<comment 26><technical> Suggest to use "SRH Max H.encaps MSD" to be aligned
with "Base MPLS Imposition MSD" in MPLS.
[cs] agree. I took the text from IANA. Should we tell IANA to make the names in
the MSD registry to be consistent? i.e. add MSD to where it is missing or
remove MSD for all of them because its somewhat redundant as the registry is
all about MSD
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types
473 The MSD constraint is typically resolved by leveraging a label stack
474 reduction technique, such as using Node SIDs and/or BSIDs (SR
475 architecture [RFC8402]) in a segment list, which represents one or
476 many hops in a given path.
<comment 27><technical> "label stack" ---> "segment list”
[cs] done
500 7. Recovery Schemes
502 Various protection and restoration schemes can be implemented. The
503 terms "protection" and "restoration" are used with the same subtle
504 distinctions outlined in section 1 of [RFC4872], [RFC4427] and
505 [RFC3386] respectively.
<comment 28><technical>When refering to the difference between "protection" and
"restoration", 3 RFCs are used for reference. Section 1 of [RFC4872] only says
that, to check [RFC4427] to see the difference, this reference is unnecessary.
And RFC4427 kind of makes the definition and use "protection" and "restoration"
more clear since RFC3386 uses these two terms interchangeably although it is
(probably)the first RFC defines them. So is it enough if RFC4427 is used as the
only reference here? And this paragraph is suggested to be re-constructed for
ease of understanding.
Suggested Text:
Various recovery(protection and restoration) schemes can be implemented for
CS-SR Policy. As described in RFC4427 section 4.3, there's subtle distinction
between the terms "protection" and "restoration", based on the resource
allocation done during the recovery path establishment. Same definitions apply
for the CS-SR Policy recovery schemes, wherein,
Protection: another candidate path is computed and fully established in the
data plane and ready to carry traffic
Restoration: a candidate path may be computed and may be partially established
but is not ready to carry traffic
[cs] good point about the somewhat circular RFC references. I adopted your
suggestion
513 The term "failure" is used to represent both "hard failures" such
514 complete loss of connectivity detected by connectivity verification
515 described in Section 8.1 or degradation, a packet loss ratio, beyond
516 a configured acceptable threshold.
<comment 29><editorial>
Suggested Text:
The term "failure" is used to represent both "hard failures" such as
complete loss of connectivity detected by connectivity verification
described in Section 8.1 and degradation, i.e, when the packet loss ratio
beyond
a configured acceptable threshold.
[cs] adopted with slight wording change
518 7.1. Unprotected
525 When using PCEP, a PCRpt message is sent from the PCC to the PCE with
526 the O field in the LSP object set to 2.
<comment 30><technical>Add reference for the O field(rfc8231#section-7.3)
<comment 31><technical>Explain the meaning of value 2 to be aligned with the
description for BGP-LS, same suggestion applies for the following sections
where the value of O field is described.
Suggested Text:
When using PCEP, a PCRpt message is sent from the PCC to the PCE with
the O field in the LSP object[RFC8231] set to 2 to indicate the candidate
path is active and carrying traffic.
[cs] done
545 7.2. 1:1 Protection
558 Appropriate routing of the protect path diverse from the working path
559 can be requested from the PCE by using the "Disjointness Association"
560 object (type 2) defined in [RFC8800] in the PCRpt messages. The
561 disjoint requirements are communicated in the "DISJOINTNESS-
562 CONFIGURATION TLV"
564 * L bit set to 1 for link diversity
565 * N bit set to 1 for node diversity
567 * S bit set to 1 for SRLG diversity
569 * T bit set to enforce strict diversity
571 The P bit may be set for first candidate path to allow for finding
572 the best working path that does satisfy all constraints without
573 considering diversity to the protect path.
<comment 32><technical> The term "first candidate path" in line 571, is it the
primary candidate path with the higher priority?
Suggested Text:
For the primary candidate path, the P bit may be set to allow for finding the
best working path that does satisfy all constraints without considering
diversity to the protect path.
[cs] we avoided to introduce terms such as working / primary and protect /
backup. Looks like whoever in the “1:1 Protection” section did so wrongly. I
reworded this section to also use “candidate path with higher/lower preference”
to be consistent with the rest of the document
654 7.3.1. 1+R Restoration
<comment 33><technical> Why it is called 1+R restoration since only one
candidate path is used for protection in this section
[cs] the “…+R” nomenclature is coming from what is being described in RFC8131
837 8. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
<comment 34><technical><discussion>The whole section using STAMP for OAM
purpose, can other mechanism be used, e.g, BFD for connectivity validation?
[cs] in theory yes, but I don’t think there is any RFC or active WG draft
documenting the use of BFD for SR Policy candidate path connectivity
verification
841 The proper operation of each segment list is validated by both
842 headends using STAMP in loopback measurement mode as described in
843 section 4.2.3 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm].
<comment 35><technical> no section 4.2.3 in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] now
[cs] good catch. This is now section 6
<comment 36><technical> is there a "SHOULD"/"MAY"/“RECOMMANDED" missing ? And I
don't quite understand why use "The proper operation" ,can we just state that
it's connectivity verification operation
Suggested Text(taking “RECOMMENDED" as an example with reconstruction) :
The connectivity verification for each segment list on both headends is
RECOMMENDED to be done using STAMP in loopback measurement mode as described in
section 6 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm].
[cs] adopted which also fixes the broken section reference
845 As the STAMP test packets are including both the segment list of the
846 forward and reverse path, standard segment routing data plane
847 operations will make those packets get switched along the forward
848 path to the tailend and along the reverse path back to the headend.
850 When using PCEP, the headend forms the bidirectional SR Policy
851 association using the procedure described in
852 [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] and receives the information about the
853 reverse segment list from the PCE as described in section 4.5 of
854 [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
856 When using BGP, the controller does inform the headend routers about
857 the reverse segment list using the Reverse Segment List Sub-TLV
858 defined in section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment].
<comment 37><technical> For SRv6, packets wouldn't get switched just forwarded.
Suggested Text:
As the STAMP test packets carry both the segment list of the forward and
reverse path, standard segment routing data plane operations will make those
packets get forwarded along the forward path to the tailend and along the
reverse path back to the headend.
<comment 38><technical> Before talking about the PCEP and BGP, it feels like
something is missing to explain why the headend need to know the reverse
segment list information.
Suggested Text:
In order to be able to send STAMP test packets for loopback measurement mode,
the STAMP Session-Sender(i.e, the headend) needs to acquire the segment list
information of the reverse path:
* PCEP part...
* BGP part….
[cs] adopted your proposals
865 8.2. Performance Measurement
867 The same STAMP session is used to estimate round-trip loss as
868 described in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm].
870 The same STAMP session used for connectivity verification can be used
871 to measure delay. As loopback mode is used only round-trip delay is
872 measured and one-way has to be derived by dividing the round-trip
873 delay by two.
<comment 39><editorial> The first paragraph seems redundant since the beginning
of the second paragraph repeated the same thing.
<comment 40><technical><discussion> Is the one-way delay always half of the
round-trip delay? Or in other words, is the delay of the forward path always
equal to the reverse path ?
[cs] reworded to remove duplication and be more clear on the considerations for
one-way delay
875 8.3. Candidate Path Validity Verification
877 A stateful PCE/controller is in sync with the network topology and
878 the CS-SR Policies provisioned on the headend routers. As described
879 in Section 5 a path must not be automatically recomputed after or
880 optimized for topology changes. However, there may be a requirement
881 for the stateful PCE/controller to tear down a path if the path no
882 longer satisfies the original requirements, detected by stateful PCE/
883 controller, such as insufficient bandwidth, diversity constraint no
884 longer met or latency constraint exceeded.
<comment 41><editorial>I try to reconstruction the paragraph
Suggested Text:
A stateful PCE/controller is in sync with the headend routers in
the network topology and the CS-SR Policies provisioned on them. As
described
in Section 5, a path MUST not be automatically recomputed after or
optimized for topology changes. However, there may be a requirement
for the stateful PCE/controller to tear down a path if the path no
longer satisfies the original requirements, as detected by stateful PCE/
controller, such as insufficient bandwidth, diversity constraint no
longer met or latency constraint exceeded.
[cs] done
886 The headend may measure the actual bandwidth utilization of a CS-SR
887 Policy to take local action and/or report it as requested bandwidth
888 via PCEP or BGP-LS to the stateful PCE/controller. Typical actions
889 are raising alarms or adjusting the reserved bandwidth.
<comment 42><technical> The measured bandwidth utilization(e.g,10GB/s) can be
reported to the controller to influence the bandwidth adjustment, but I don't
quite understand why the measured bandwidth can be used as the requested
bandwidth.(Its bandwidth measured is already 10GB/s, why requesting a 10GB/s
bandwidth to the controller ).
[cs] The intent of this paragraph was to explain how a situation may be dealt
with where the request bandwidth during path establishment is lower than the
actual measured bandwidth.
Based on a recent comment we now have added text to section 4.1 outlining the
need for an ingress policers/shaper to limit that actual traffic being sent
into the SR Policy can never exceed the requested bandwidth. So we could
consider removing this paragraph, or we could adjust this paragraph to explain
that measurement of actual traffic can be used for automatic bandwidth
adjustments (aka auto-bandwidth) as long as they don’t lead changes in the
path routing which we before explicitly ruled out
895 9. External Commands
<comment 43><technical> It's not clearly stated who would support these
external commands (I believe it's the controller) and are these commands
mandatory or optional. Maybe change the title(such as External Commands
Recommended of the controller) or add some description under the title(such
as, this section recommends some external commands on the controller).
[cs] added a paragraph to provide more clarity. The new text is motivated by
section 4.13 of RFC4427
897 9.1. Candidate Path Switchover
901
Operator triggered
902 switching between candidate paths is unidirectional and has to be
903 requested on both headends.
<comment 44><editorial> reconstruction the text for ease of reading. And is
there a "SHOULD" needed here?
Suggested New Text:
Since switch between candidate paths triggered by the operator is
unidirectional, the candidate path switch commands SHOULD be executed for both
headends of a CS-SR policy.
[cs] reworded to align with text of previous comment and added_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
